MARTIN CALDERON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Martin Calderon appealed the dismissal of his postconviction motion seeking jail and prison credit for forfeited gain time. The court reversed and remanded, finding that Calderon's prison credit claim should have been considered under Rule 3.800 rather than Rule 3.801, and that a Rule 3.801 motion would not be untimely due to a grace period amendment to the rules.
The court held that Calderon's claim for prison credit should be considered under Rule 3.800 rather than Rule 3.801, which applies only to jail credit claims. Additionally, the court held that Calderon's motion would not be untimely under Rule 3.801 due to a December 2013 amendment to the rule providing a one-year grace period for defendants whose sentences became final before July 1, 2013, giving Calderon until July 1, 2014, to file a motion.
[1] A claim for forfeited gain time earned during imprisonment, as opposed to jail credit before sentencing, must be raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, no…
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 applies only to claims for credit for time spent in county jail before sentencing.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rule 3.801(a) specifies that the rule applies only to claims for credit for time 'spent in the county jail before sentencing as provided in section 921.161, Florida Statutes.'”
Establishes that Rule 3.801 applies only to jail credit, not prison credit, making Calderon's claim subject to Rule 3.800 instead.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin Calderon filed a postconviction motion seeking credit for gain time earned during his seventy-eight month term of imprisonment. The postconvict…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prison Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Martin Calderon filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seeking jail credit and prison credit for forfeited gain time. The postconvietion court dismissed the motion, finding that Mr. Calderon should have raised his claims under rule 3.801 but concluding that such a motion would have been untimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The postconviction court’s order presents two problems. First, Mr. Calderon’s claim that he was entitled to credit “for gain time that he earned during his seventy-eight month term of imprisonment” is clearly not a jail credit claim but a claim for time served in prison. Rule 3.801(a) specifies that the rule applies only to claims for credit for time “spent in the county jail before sentencing as provided in section 921.161, Florida Statutes.” Accordingly, the postconviction court should have considered this claim of illegal sentence under rule 3.800, and we remand for it to do so.
Second, Mr. Calderon’s motion is not untimely under rule 3.801(b), although it appeared to be so at the time the post-conviction court entered its order. Mr. Calderon’s sentence became final on March 30, 2012, well before rule 3.801 went into effect on July 1, 2013, and over a year before Mr. Calderon filed his motion on September 10, 2013. Rule 3.801, when originally enacted, included a blanket time limit of one year to file a motion after the sentence becomes final. But on December 5, 2013, the supreme court revised the rule, nunc pro tunc, to include a one-year grace period for defendants whose sentences became final before July 1, 2013, so those in Mr. Calderon’s situation would *590have until July 1, 2014, to file a motion for correction of jail credit. See In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure & Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 132 So.3d 734 (Fla.2013). Thus, Mr. Calderon is not yet foreclosed from seeking-relief under this rule.
However, as the postconviction court correctly noted, Mr. Calderon’s motion was not facially sufficient to be considered under rule 3.801 in any event. Accordingly, on remand, Mr. Calderon shall be permitted to file a motion, under oath, that includes the content required by rule 3.801(c), on or before July 1, 2014.
Reversed and remanded for partial reconsideration under rule 3.800 without prejudice for Mr. Calderon to file a timely rule 3.801 motion.
WALLACE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jontrel Curtis v. State, 197 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…nt in jail prior to sentencing; it does not provide for the correction of prison credit. Instead, a claim for credit for prison time is properly raised in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Calderon v. State, 138 So. 3d 589, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). However, when a movant files a properly pleaded postconviction claim but incorrectly styles the postconvicr tion motion in which it is raised,-the post-conviction court must treat the claim as if it had been filed in an appr…
-
Marchetti v. State, 143 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…extend the filing limit for defendants whose sentences became final before July 1, 2013. See In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 132 So. 3d 734 (Fla.2013); see also Calderon v. State, 138 So. 3d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).…
-
Kareem Abdul Johnson v. State, 252 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…tencing hearing until his resentencing hearing following the reversal of his original sentences on direct appeal. Thus, Appellant’s motion should have been construed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Calderon v. State, 138 So. 3d 589, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In response to this 2 Court’s Toler*order, the state concedes that remand is required to permit the trial court to consider the motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a). Under these circumstances, we reverse and remand for f…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 132 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 2013)